Abortion in the Spotlight

The issue of abortion has been in the news recently for two reasons. First it appears that some people on the UK have been allowed abortions on the grounds of the gender of the unborn child. Secondly The Journal of Medical Ethics has published a paper where it is claimed that infanticide (killing a new born baby) is morally no different to abortion; so if abortion is allowed, why not infanticide?

On the first issue let's just clarify UK law on abortion. Basically an abortion is allowed if there is a significant risk of the baby being born disabled or if having the baby will adversley effect the women's, or existing children's, physical or mental well being. This last reason essentially means we have abortion on demend in our country. If a woman says that, at this stage in her life, she could not cope with a baby, then she can have an abortion.

Why, then, the moral outrage expressed by some who support the above, but find the idea of gender selective abortions unacceptable? Is there any significant difference? In both cases an unwanted foetus is aborted.

There are clearly some instances when the reasons for abortions are obvious and well supported, such as in the case of pregnancy through rape, and many, but not all, would agree that there is a significant difference between this and a gender selective abortion.

However is it really right that a women who knowingly didn't use contraception and then gets an abortion on grounds that she couldn't cope with a baby can have abortion, when another women, say with 2 sons who really wants a girl, cannot have one if she finds out she is expecting another boy. It is hard to see how the behaviour of the woman in the first example is more morally acceptable than the behaviour of the woman in the second.

On the other hand there are Pro-Life groups who argue that all abortion is wrong; it is killing a human being and should never be done. While this view can be condemned for lacking compassion, especially when the pregnancy may be as a result of rape, it does not suffer from the moral ambiguities that our current abortion laws seem to allow.

The second issue seems even more contentious. Can anyone really be arguing that killing babies is acceptable?! Well the answer is yes, and here is why; the reason abortions are allowed is because the foetus is not a human person in the sense that it cannot survive independantly, it cannot communicate with any level of sophistication, it has very little in the way of rational abilities or self awareness. The trouble is that these things could also be said of a newborn baby - it can't survive independantly for any length of time; left alone it will die, and at this stage in life, it does not possess the communicative or rational abilities associated with being human. Therefore, the argument goes, if it's okay to abort a foetus for certain reasons, which many people say it is, then it is okay to kill a new born baby for the same reasons. This is actually not a new arguement and the likes of Peter Singer have been advocating it for years.

Interestingly enough it is also the view held by many Pro-Life supporters but for the opposite reason. They would say that as there is no real difference between an unborn and a new born child so it is therefore wrong to have an abortion, just as it is wrong to kill a baby.

These issues are very complex and contentious but they do highlight the importance of ethics in the real world.

For more on gender abortions click here.
For more on the infanticide issue click here.

Professor John Lennox on Christianity and Science

Professor John Lennox is a top Oxford Mathematician. He is also a committed Christian. Here he talks about his debates with Richard Dawkins, his own journey of faith and why Christianity makes sense of science, life and the universe.

What do you think about his ideas?

Homosexuality, Church of England and the Bible

Discussions and interviews regarding the issue of homosexulity in the Anglican Church. Also has some interesting discussions about how Bible references regarding homosexuality can be understood.

Life After Death is a 'Fairy Story' say Stephen Hawking

Emminent scientist Stephen Hawking has branded life after death a 'fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark'. He has also recently proposed that the universe could create itself from nothing, with out the need of God - see here.



Hawking's understanding of the workings of the universe is, to be sure, greater than most of us could ever wish to hold, but is knowledge of the universe enough to deny out right the existence of life after death? Talk of life after death is generally regarded as belonging to the realm of metaphyics, philosophy and Theology. It's true that science hasn't provided any convincing evidence for life after, however it has long been suggested that if there is a heaven, or indeed a hell, that it would be transcendant, that is beyond time and space beyond the universe. The idea of a heaven in the sky and hell under the earth is viewed by most, in metaphorical or symbolic terms.

Hawkings also likens the human brain to a computer, that shuts down at death. I can only assume that he is making use of analogy here as, while there are obvious similarities between a brain and a computer eg, the ability to store and retrieve information, that are also vast differences. It was the famous sceptical agnostic philosopher Hume who criticised Paley's watch analogy on this very point. Just because the brain resembles a computer in some ways, it does not follow that it resembles it in all ways. The Dualist view is that we are more than simply physical matter - and that it is reductionist to suggest that the people we are, our feelings, desires, memories, fears and loves are nothing more than the result of a complex biological computer.
There are good arguments against the existence of life after death as well as arguments to support it but many of them go beyond the remit of science.

There is a danger when scientists like Hawking make metaphysical/philosophical claims and that many people will accept them as scientific fact, when, in truth the issue is very much up for debate.

To read more from this article click here.

To read more on life after death click here.

Discrimination and Equality - Not as simple as it seems!

In a recent news story we see that a devout Christian couple have been refused as foster carers becasue their religious beliefs prevent them from teaching potential foster children that homosexuality is acceptable.
"I cannot lie and I cannot hate, but I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual."
Eunice Johns
It is clear that this has taken place to prevent 'sexual discrimination' but it has led to claims of 'religious discrimination'. That the only reason they cannot foster is because of their religious beliefs.
Whatever one's personal views on homosexuality or religous views towards it are, this is certainly a very contentious issue.
It is only becasue the couple are open about thier beliefs that this has become an issue. One wonders how many people have been allowed to foster and adopt that hold views, that they will teach to their children, that could be deemed discriminatory. One does not need to belong to a particular group or religion to be homophobic, racist, sexist etc and to then pass these beliefs on to the children on your care.
Indeed how does one decide what an acceptable belief is? If it simply a matter of what the government finds acceptable, we could find ourselves living in George Orwell's '1984', where we are told what to believe or else! If however we say it is about what the majority of people find acceptable there are huge practical implications of how this would be discerned and this also assumes that the majority of people are in some sense morally enlightened.
It should also be noted that not all Christians hold strong beleifs against homosexuality. Catholic teaching is that being homosexual is not wrong, although practising it is. The Anglican Church is currently debating how homosexuality should be viewed, with many arguing that, providing it is a committed, loving relationship, (marriage) it is acceptable, while others do regard it as a grave sin .
The truth is that just about every parent in the world will be teaching their children something that someone else finds offensive or wrong - it is the nature of the diverse species that we are.
How we then try to apply this to fostering and adoption laws is a very complicated question, and one to which I do not have the answer!
For more on this story click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.
For more on the right to a child click here.

The Dangers of Relativism

Prominent American Atheist Sam Harris discusses the dangers of relativism. Interestingly it is religions that normally argue in favour of an absolute morality but Harris turns this on its head.

While I think he raises some very interesting and insightful points I can't help thinking he had somewhat of an anti-Islamic agenda. I would feel more comfortable if he had used more of a range of idealogical beliefs, both secular and religious (like the comparison between the veil and the magazine covers), and that this would have actually strengthened his argument.

For more on absolutism and relativism click here.

Faking A Religious Experience

This documentary shows how stimulating the brain in a certain way can produce an experience with very similar characteristics to those of a religious experience.
Does this show that religious experiences cannot be genuine?
I don't think it goes that far. It does show that a scientific explanation of the experiences is possible and as such, bring more doubt as to the authenticity of such experiences but it doesn't prove they are not genuine.
After all, taking hallucinagenic drugs may make you see beautiful butterflies flying in front of your eyes, but this does not mean that whenever anyone claims to see beautiful butterflies that we must assume that the butterflies are not real.




For more on religious experiences click here.

Catholic Church announces that the use of Condoms can sometimes be the right thing to do.

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic Church is that the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, is wrong. This is because they believe that the main God given purpose of sex is to reproduce. This is based on a Natural Law view of ethics, heavily influenced by St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle who were both concerned with the purpose or Telos of an action.


This belief has, until now, been seen in an absolutist way so that the use of condoms would be seen as wrong in any circumstance.

There now appears to be a change of stance whereby the Pope has said that, in situations were a condom is being used to prevent the spread of HIV, and thus protect one's partner, that their use is the most repsonsible thing. This could still fit with a Natural Law approach under what is called 'double effect'. This is where, when one's primary intention is good, eg to save a life, a normally immoral action can be allowed.
This does not mark any significant change in the Church's view of sex or indeed contraception. It still holds that sex should only be within marriage and should always have the possibility of reproduction. It also still maintains that the proper way to combat HIV is not condoms but through a change of attitude and lifestyle with regards to sex.

It does seem to show though that there is some recognition of a 'grey area' in some ethical matters however which will be seen by some as very significant.

For more on this story click here.
For more on Natural Law click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.

New Primate - Bad Design or Illogical Evolution?

I was very excited to see a new type of primate has been discovered in Burma. Such discoveries are incredibly rare.

The new primate, a type of snub nosed monkey, is very distinctive, with nostrils that point upwards. This unusual feature apparantly causes the animal some problems, with locals claiming that the monkey sneezes when it rains, due to rain drops falling into its nose. It seems that it puts it head between its legs to avoid this. (I am not making this up!).

So what would a Creationist have to say about this? Why would a perfect God create an animal with such an apparant flaw?

On the other hand a supporter of Darwinian evolution may also be faced with some difficulty here. Why would the upturned nose have survived as a characteristic when, again, it appears to be a negative trait?

A tragic side to this story is that the only known specimen of this monkey was killed by hunters and later eaten. It could be said that this human brutality is more fitting with evolution's 'survival of the fittest' idea than that of a species created and designed in the image of a loving God.

To read more about this incredible discovery click here.

How far can we trust our senses?

In his Cave Analogy Plato compares empirical knowledge to imperfect flickering shadows. He argues that our physical senses cannot be trusted and reveal the truth to us.

More modern Materialists, such as Richard Dawkins, have more sympathy with Aristotle's view that it is only through scientific empirical evidence that we can know anything.

The BBC documentary Is Seeing Believing explores how our senses can be misled and manipulated and, also, why this may not necessarily be a bad thing.



To watch more from this programme click here.
For more on Plato's Cave Analogy click here.

Killing in the name of Justice

The first woman in 5 years is to be executed in the U.S. Does the fact that she is a woman make it significant? There are certainly far fewer women than men executed.

When considering issues such as the sanctity of life the death penalty is very contentious. Does anyone, even the state, have the right to take away the life of another person?

Few people would argue that many who are executed have committed terrible crimes and need to be kept away from the general population, but what is the purpose of the justice system?

If it is to seek revenge thenthe death penalty may well be acceptable, but if it is about justice - about making things right, can the death penalty do this?

To read more about this case click here.

Professor Keith Ward discussing Materialism and Idealism

Keith Ward: "Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins from Metanexus Institute on Vimeo.

Keith Ward is seen here challenging the claims of Hard Materialists like Richard Dawkins, that the universe and everything in it is purely physical.

Some good notes regarding the body and soul argument can also be found here.

This would be particulalry useful for the Body and Soul module and anyone taking part in the A2 essay competition.

The Case for God Part 1. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs defends his faith against a number of atheists.

The Case for God Part 2. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs defends his faith against a number of atheists.

AS Theology Essay Competition

Enrich your subject knowledge and understanding
Improve your exam skills
Excellent way to enhance your UCAS personal statement
Essay of no more than 1000 words
‘There are no convincing reasons to believe in God.’ Discuss
Must be handed in/emailed to your Theology teacher by Monday 6th December
1st Prize £30 HMV voucher
Runner up prize £15 HMV vouchers
For more details see Mr Vaughan

A2 Theology Essay Competition

Enrich your subject knowledge and understanding
Improve your exam skills
Excellent way to enhance your UCAS personal statement
Essay of no more than 1000 words
‘There is nothing beyond the physical world.’ Discuss
Must be handed in/emailed to your Theology teacher by Monday 18th October

1st Prize £30 HMV voucher
Runner up prize £15 HMV vouchers
For more details see Mr Vaughan

Commedian Frank Skinner reveals his concerns about the challenges facing modern Catholicism

'I really feel there is a God. I know atheism is extremely fashionable nowadays but I just can’t kick this believing thing. I must say that I have a lot of time for atheists. I respect anyone who gives this most momentous question a good deal of thought, whatever conclusion they finally arrive at.
I’m less keen on the glut of bandwagon atheists who’ve just unquestioningly joined in because they think the atheist label makes them sound clever and grown-up.'

Frank Skinner

Read more here.

Science that sounds like science fiction with a bit of God thrown in!

The Hadron Collider has been beset by difficulties and accidents. Some of those involved have made the extraordinary suggestion that something is stopping the Hadron Collider from being successful - something from the future... or maybe something from somewhere entirely different.



Read the full article here.

Philosophy and Religion in Films

Many films use philosophical and Theological concepts in their underlying plots.

The Matrix has strong links to Plato's Cave, Signs deals with faith and Minority Report raises the issue of free will.

A list of such films are here.

Have you seen any films that appear to have such an influence?

BNP secures two European seats

BNP leader Nick Griffin has been elected to the European Parliament as the party won its first two seats.
Mr Griffin was elected for the North West region while Andrew Brons picked up another BNP seat in Yorkshire and Humber, where it won 10% of the vote.
Mr Griffin said the BNP was not racist, but won votes because it "spoke openly about the problem of immigration."
Labour's Harriet Harman described the result as "terrible" while Tory leader David Cameron said he was "sickened".

BNP leader Nick Griffin is attacked by egg throwers. Is this an appropriate way to make a political protest?

Do you think the BNP party sould be allowed to exist, even if it is, as some people claim, racist?

Should people be allowed to vote for the BNP, and if not, what would be the wider implications of this?

Read more here.